Appeal No. 95-2346
Application 08/147,093
corrected brief filed September 15, 1994, for the appellant's
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant's specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the
examiner. Upon evaluation of all the evidence before us, it
is
our conclusion that the evidence adduced by the examiner is
insufficient to establish a case of obviousness with respect
to claims 1 through 19. Accordingly, we will not sustain the
examiner's rejections of claims 1 through 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103. Our reasoning for this determination follows.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner
bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28
USPQ2d
1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). A prima facie case of
obviousness is established by presenting evidence that the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007